MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2028587558 · doi:10.1115/icone17-75972

Point Lepreau Refurbishment Project Level 2 PSA Applications

2009· article· en· W2028587558 on OpenAlexaff
Laura Comănescu, S. Sawh, Ma Wei, B.. Lee, Ana Maria Roxana Petrescu, A. Nainer, R. K. Jaitly, A. F. Jean, D. F. Basque, Derek Mullin

Bibliographic record

VenueVolume 2: Structural Integrity; Safety and Security; Advanced Applications of Nuclear Technology; Balance of Plant for Nuclear Applications · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Safety Analysis
Canadian institutionsEnergie NB Power (Canada)Atomic Energy (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRisk assessmentRisk analysis (engineering)Reliability engineeringEngineeringScope (computer science)Computer scienceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A Probabilistic Safety Assessment (PSA) for Point Lepreau Generating Station has been completed as part of the plant Refurbishment Project. The main objective of this PSA is to provide insights into plant safety design and performance, including the identification of dominant risk contributors and assessing options for reducing risk. The scope of this assessment covers Level 1 and 2 PSA and includes internal events for full power and shutdown, internal fires and internal floods as well as PSA-based seismic margin assessment (SMA) for full power operation. Following the accident sequence quantification for internal events, fire and flood, the results were integrated to provide an overall estimation of the Severe Core Damage Frequency (SCDF) and the Large Release Frequency (LRF) for the refurbished Point Lepreau plant. Importance analysis was performed on the integrated results to identify risk-significant failures, using Fussell-Vesely and Risk Achievement Worth indices, and risk-contributors using Risk Reduction Worth indices. Based on the importance measures, analysis was performed to evaluate the sensitivity of the SCDF and LRF results to the dominant contributors. Uncertainty analysis was also performed to provide qualitative discussions and quantitative measures of the uncertainties in the results of the PSA, namely the frequency of severe core damage or external releases. Based on the results, recommendations were made to improve maintenance, testing, training procedures as well as housekeeping. Also, results of the Level 1 and 2 PSA have been used to determine the safety important systems and components. This paper discusses the key results and recommendations of the Level 2 PSA as well as the methodology used to determine the safety important systems.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.297 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVolume 2: Structural Integrity; Safety and Security; Advanced Applications of Nuclear Technology; Balance of Plant for Nuclear ApplicationsSame topicRisk and Safety AnalysisFrench-language works237,207